Rendon Landa v. Hagan et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 26-cv-01075-PAB
ISMAEL RENDON LANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
GEORGE VALDEZ, 1 Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Denver Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, 2 Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, and
JUAN BALTASAR, 3 Warden of Denver Contract Facility,
Respondents.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Ismael Rendon Landa’s Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1]. Respondents filed a response. Docket No.
7. 4
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), George Valdez is
automatically substituted as a party in this action.
2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Markwayne Mullin is
automatically substituted as a party in this action.
3 The proper spelling of this respondent’s name appears to be Baltazar. See,
e.g., De La Cruz v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00360-PAB, 2026 WL 439217 (D. Colo. Feb. 16,
2026); Gonzalez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00297-PAB, 2026 WL 415600 (D. Colo. Feb. 13,
2026); Portillo Martinez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00106-PAB, 2026 WL 194163 (D. Colo.
Jan. 26, 2026); Florez Marin v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03697-PAB, 2025 WL 3677019 (D.
Colo. Dec. 18, 2025).
4 Respondents argue that the named non-individual respondents—U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Executive Office for Immigration
Case No. 1:26-cv-01075-PAB Document 8 filed 03/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
I. BACKGROUND 5
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico. Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶ 18. Petitioner has resided
in the United States since at least July 1, 2007. Id. at 6, ¶ 28. Petitioner was detained
on January 18, 2026. Id. at 4, ¶ 18. He was issued a Notice to Appear on or about
January 18, 2026, where DHS placed him in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a. Id. at 6, ¶ 26. Petitioner is being detained at the Denver Contract Detention
Facility. Id. at 2, ¶ 2.
On March 16, 2026, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See
generally id. Petitioner brings a claim that respondents are detaining him in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 5-6, ¶¶ 25-31. Petitioner requests, among other things, that
the Court require respondents to provide him with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). Id. at 3, ¶ 8.
II. ANALYSIS
The parties disagree on whether petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 or 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Id. at 6, ¶ 29; Docket No. 7 at 1-2. Petitioner states that the
Notice to Appear indicates that petitioner is being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Docket No. 1 at 6, ¶ 29. The Notice to Appear indicates that petitioner is “an alien
present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.” Docket No. 1-1 at
1. Because he believes that § 1226 applies, petitioner argues that respondents must
provide him with a bond hearing. Docket No. 1 at 3, ¶ 8. Respondents, however,
Review—are not properly named in a habeas petition. Docket No. 7 at 1 n.2. The
Court agrees and will grant the habeas petition against the individual respondents only.
5 The following facts are taken from the habeas petition. Docket No. 1.
Respondents have not disputed any facts and do not provide any facts of their own.
See generally Docket No. 7.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01075-PAB Document 8 filed 03/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
contend that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens like petitioner who are
“present in the United States without having been admitted.” Docket No. 7 at 2.
Respondents claim that petitioner is therefore not entitled to a bond hearing and is
subject to mandatory detention. Id.
On many occasions, this Court has analyzed whether § 1225 or § 1226 applies
to petitioners who were detained when already present in the United States without
inspection and who face removal proceedings. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Baltasar, No. 26-
cv-01036-PAB, 2026 WL 809548 (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 2026); Cruz v. Noem, No. 26-cv-
00312-PAB-NRN, 2026 WL 766689, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2026); Moncada-
Hernandez v. Trump, No. 26-cv-00436-PAB, 2026 WL 472744, at *2-3 (D. Colo. Feb.
19, 2026); De La Cruz v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00360-PAB, 2026 WL 439217, at *2 (D.
Colo. Feb. 16, 2026); Alfaro Orellana v. Noem, No. 25-cv-03976-PAB, 2025 WL
3706417, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2025). Each time, the Court has ruled that the
petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226. Id.
Respondents acknowledge that the Court has previously analyzed this issue,
conceding “the facts of this case are not materially distinguishable . . . for purposes of
the Court’s decision on the legal issue of whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” Docket No. 7 at 3-4. Respondents state that
they submit an abbreviated response “to conserve resources and expedite this Court’s
consideration of this case, while preserving legal arguments and reserving all of
Respondent’s rights including the right to appeal.” Id. at 2. Respondents note that a
decision in this district rejecting respondents’ position has been appealed to the Tenth
Circuit. Id. at 3 (citing Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, 2025 WL
Case No. 1:26-cv-01075-PAB Document 8 filed 03/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
2962908 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025)). “Respondents acknowledge that until the Tenth
Circuit rules on this issue, the Court’s prior ruling on this issue would lead the Court to
reach the same result here if the Court adheres to that decision, as the facts of this case
are not materially distinguishable from that case for the purposes of the Court’s decision
on the legal issue of whether petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).” Id. at 3-4. Respondents incorporate by reference the legal arguments
that respondents presented in Mendoza Gutierrez, the case which was appealed to the
Tenth Circuit. Id. at 4.
The Court has analyzed the response that was submitted in Mendoza Gutierrez.
See Mendoza Gutierrez, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, Docket No. 26 (D. Colo. Sept. 16,
2025). Not finding any additional relevant arguments that the Court has not already
addressed in its past orders on this issue, the Court will grant the habeas petition for the
same reasons as it did in Alfaro Orellana, which respondents acknowledge does not
materially differ from the present case. Docket No. 7 at 2. Because there is no
evidence that petitioner has been provided a bond hearing, his current detention
violates § 1226(a). The Court will grant the habeas petition on the § 1226 claim and will
order respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing within seven days of the date of
this order.
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that petitioner Ismael Rendon Landa’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Docket No. 1] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that respondents shall provide petitioner with a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Court’s order. It is further
Case No. 1:26-cv-01075-PAB Document 8 filed 03/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
ORDERED that, within five days of petitioner’s bond hearing, the parties shall
file a status report indicating whether the bond hearing was held and whether bond was
granted or denied.
DATED March 27, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
__________________________
Case No. 1:26-cv-01075-PAB Document 8 filed 03/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5